eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 27, 2015 12:18:38 GMT -5
There seems to be a major disconnect on this thread, where you're actually saying Carl and TMC manufactures are incorrect. In fact, you are stating, the numbers published on something like SunSun Pressured Filter with about 2100 gph with a 13 watt UV is in fact what you want, when in fact, we have already proven these number to be poor at even clarification. With the simple adjustment of the dwell time, using the same filter, it made all the difference in the world. You are completely writing off the design made by professionals of these sterilizers. The point of the 15 watt vecton vs. the 8 watt is the length of the bulb and you are completely writing it off due to an increase in speed over the longer bulb. Which I do not agree with either. I might just test this, as this would be an easy test to preform. You're reasoning behind this doesn't make sense and even if there's a sight increase in flow, does it make it that much useless, that all the sudden 8 watts can bet it out? There would be no reason for TMC to develop any of there other sterilizers/clarifiers with that reasoning. Your basically saying with the same pump, hooked up to a 8 watt vs a 15 watt, the gph of the 15 watt would be so much quicker it would write off the advantage of the longer bulb. I cannot agree with this. It also goes to Carl's point as why the 15 watt Vecton with a longer bulb outperforms a 16 watt... I'm unsure how you can say a complete manufacturing company is wrong and the things Carl actually tested didn't happen. Well, I'm here to discuss with an open mind, not just to bash anyone's product. Arguments "who are you to go against a manufacturer's wisdom and research" and "why would TMC do it" aren't going to fly with me, as they're not flying with you when you are proposing better recommendations for aquarium size for Vectons (contrary to TMC's recommendations), or when you're questioning design of Turbo Twists. Heck, there is so much misinformation in the aquaria world and sale pitches, anything should be questioned, and I don't see a problem with that as long as there is some logic and a hard attempt to explain/prove the point. You went through the effort of explaining your points of view on your web site, I'm going through mine to do about the same. Nothing to become upset about. And shouldn't it excite you instead that there may be something out there that reefers are just blindly repeating after themselves whereas in fact it's wrong? About other points of yours... 1) Could you please direct me to the article or test where it was proven that SunSun Pressured Filters are bad at 2100gph with a 13w UV even for clarification? I saw them mentioned in the context of incorrect flow rates or the lack of a prefilter, but don't remember coming across an actual test. Seriously, would love to read on it. That may just put my doubts about the importance of dwell time to rest. 2) You disagree with the increase of speed in Vecton 400 over Vecton 200, but why? I showed and explained you all the calculations. Vecton 400 has a smaller cross-section due to thicker quartz tube. With the same GPH this produces higher linear speeds. If math didn't prove it, imagine a fat hose and a thin tube, both carrying the same volume of water per second. The water will flow lazily from the hose, and will shoot fast from the tube. Just common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 27, 2015 12:25:41 GMT -5
This was already answered by me, so we are now going in circles.
I have not problem answering questions and making information more accurate, this is how my articles have evolved and and been improved over the years, with OTHER'S input. But this is not what I am seeing, I am seeing you argue results rather than better explain results. Similar with Head Pressure, you made some excellent points that were well taken, but you still had to come back in the end and state that the the "results" were wrong even after we performed some quick tests to further prove differences in placement of a canister filter.
Carl
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 27, 2015 12:26:40 GMT -5
Yeah, you start getting personal. Same way as you thought those reefers did when they attacked your products.
Fine, you don't find this topic interesting, there is no point in continuing it.
|
|
|
Post by devonjohnsgard on Oct 27, 2015 12:32:49 GMT -5
I will run the test between the 8 watt and 15 watt and see if your common sense would make for such a dramatic difference that we can completely write off a longer bulb...
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 27, 2015 12:33:54 GMT -5
Yeah, you start getting personal. Same way as you thought those reefers did when they attacked your products. Fine, you don't find this topic interesting, there is no point in continuing it. Personal? How is it personal when I am clearly defending my results NOT my products as you stated? The products came from the results, this includes why I rejected the TMC 300. The first part part of your statement reveals your true colors and objectives here IMO. I do not dispute this math, but it does not explain not just my results, but many others including manufacturer recommendations Carl
|
|
|
Post by devonjohnsgard on Oct 27, 2015 13:39:32 GMT -5
We just ran the test using the same Rio 1000 pump & head pressure... and filling up a 1 gallon.... Ran the test 3 times each. Both the Vecton 200 and 400 took 21 secs to fill a gallon...
This is exactly what I would have thought and the major point, which separate the 200 vs. the 400. You stated it as common sense. Actually what I was thinking was more common sense. Plus the 15 has that much MORE amount of energy in the unit bouncing around. Much more that 8 watts.
My position stands on this discussion.
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 27, 2015 15:35:19 GMT -5
We just ran the test using the same Rio 1000 pump & head pressure... and filling up a 1 gallon.... Ran the test 3 times each. Both the Vecton 200 and 400 took 21 secs to fill a gallon... This is exactly what I would have thought and the major point, which separate the 200 vs. the 400. You stated it as common sense. Actually what I was thinking was more common sense. Plus the 15 has that much MORE amount of energy in the unit bouncing around. Much more that 8 watts. My position stands on this discussion. Just re-read what I wrote above. I was talking about linear speed inside the sterilizer with a flow having the same GPH. And what did you just prove? That it takes the same amount of time to fill a bucket with the same pump and different sterilizers. Well, to me it proves one thing: that both sterilizers make negligible impact on that Rio's performance, i.e. I can disregard their head pressure. Thanks, it's nice to know that. But your test did nothing to measure or prove that linear speed of water INSIDE sterilizer is the same. When you said that you were gonna test that, I thought, wow, you must've had a unit with a clear PVC housing or smth like that, so that you would actually see how fast or slow colored water moved inside. Pause for a second. Imagine the extreme case when one sterilizer looks like a big fat PVC pipe 24" in diameter. The other is a regular 1" PVC. And you pump water through both of them at the same GPH. What will happen with the fat pipe is that the moment water enters it, it will slow down. Its linear speed along the fat sterilizer's axis will be less than its linear speed along the thin sterilizer's axis. How much less? 24*24/(1*1), that's how much. Will the difference in the sterilizer's PVC thickness affect the flow of water after it leaves the sterilizer? No. And the buckets will fill with the same speed. That's the thing with the tests, they may seem to address one thing, but in fact, they do smth completely different. I hope you'll look differently now at me trying to get to the exact conditions of how your tests were run. And Carl, by "making it personal" I meant your comments about my free time and discounting seemingly well laid arguments a-priori in favor of your experience. Like I said, I came here open for an interesting discussion. There is no need to heat it up. The interesting and funny part is that I wasn't afraid to prove myself wrong. Because if dwell time was really not that important, that would automatically negate all the theory that I laid in the first few posts.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 27, 2015 16:46:41 GMT -5
I never discounted your well laid out arguments, only that they did not properly explain my results. I have admitted on more than one occasion that I feel my calculations can be improved, but I am not going to go around in circles with some sort of "Men in Black" Neuralyzer telling me that I never witnessed what I witnessed. Frankly this is something I would never say to another person, especially if they have observed something 1000s of times. As for free time, I spend countless hours here, re-writing articles, in other groups, even earlier today helping with local aquariums, so when one keeps repeating the same thing with no respect for my time, what am I supposed to say.
Again, I am happy for any explanation that better explains my results here, but when you make statement such as below, you are choosing to show 0 respect for the time I spend here and before:
One aspect I think you are missing is surface area of exposure, this again is going to be in favor of the Vecton 400 over the 200 or the Advantage 30 watt over the Advantage 25 watt. As I have already noted, the differences in ability of the 30 watt Advantage were markedly better over the 25 watt Advantage than the 25 over 15 watt Advantage even though the wattage difference was actually double for the 25 over the 15. Using you statements, to me "this is common sense" too.
BTW; the volume of water contained in the 8 watt Vecton is EXACTLY the same as the 15 or 25 Watt.
Carl
|
|
|
Post by devonjohnsgard on Oct 27, 2015 16:48:34 GMT -5
Just re-read what I wrote above. I was talking about linear speed inside the sterilizer with a flow having the same GPH. And what did you just prove? That it takes the same amount of time to fill a bucket with the same pump and different sterilizers. Well, to me it proves one thing: that both sterilizers make negligible impact on that Rio's performance, i.e. I can disregard their head pressure. Thanks, it's nice to know that. Yes, the sterilizers were right outside the tank with little head pressure applied, so it wasn't a factor. With a flow threw unit like a sterilizer I would expect this. But your test did nothing to measure or prove that linear speed of water INSIDE sterilizer is the same. When you said that you were gonna test that, I thought, wow, you must've had a unit with a clear PVC housing or smth like that, so that you would actually see how fast or slow colored water moved inside. Pause for a second. Imagine the extreme case when one sterilizer looks like a big fat PVC pipe 24" in diameter. The other is a regular 1" PVC. And you pump water through both of them at the same GPH. What will happen with the fat pipe is that the moment water enters it, it will slow down. Its linear speed along the fat sterilizer's axis will be less than its linear speed along the thin sterilizer's axis. How much less? 24*24/(1*1), that's how much. Will the difference in the sterilizer's PVC thickness affect the flow of water after it leaves the sterilizer? No. And the buckets will fill with the same speed. I'm sorry, I disagree as this really makes no sense and you are justifying it to throw out the whole 15 watt UV. It's impossible to make that much of a difference. We also ran a second test, which I didn't tell you, where we tipped the unit on its side so up and down times how long the cambers took to fill. The only difference came down to the length of the camber and it was a rather small difference. But there's that much MORE wattage of UVC inside. Unless you can prove this point as to how it has such an effect to make a 8 watt outperform a 15 watt, I disagree with you. You stated it was common sense, which it's not. That's the thing with the tests, they may seem to address one thing, but in fact, they do smth completely different. I hope you'll look differently now at me trying to get to the exact conditions of how your tests were run. And Carl, by "making it personal" I meant your comments about my free time and discounting seemingly well laid arguments a-priori in favor of your experience. Like I said, I came here open for an interesting discussion. There is no need to heat it up. The interesting and funny part is that I wasn't afraid to prove myself wrong. Because if dwell time was really not that important, that would automatically negate all the theory that I laid in the first few posts. I think it's your turn to start proving some things and stop working off theory. Just my opinion, because all this theory is not adding up.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 27, 2015 17:28:48 GMT -5
One aspect I think you are missing is surface area of exposure, this again is going to be in favor of the Vecton 400 over the 200 or the Advantage 30 watt over the Advantage 25 watt. As I have already noted, the differences in ability of the 30 watt Advantage were markedly better over the 25 watt Advantage than the 25 over 15 watt Advantage even though the wattage difference was actually double for the 25 over the 15. Using you statements, to me "this is common sense" too. BTW; the volume of water contained in the 8 watt Vecton is EXACTLY the same as the 15 or 25 Watt. Since I brought up surface area, the 8 watt & 16 watt T5 lamp has a surface area of 145.75 cm While the 15/25 watt T8 lamp has a surface area of 352.75 cm This is more than double the potential area of contact. Carl
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 27, 2015 18:35:41 GMT -5
Carl, I'm not sure why you keep on accusing me of excess of spare time or lack of respect. The only thing that you told me in this thread that could be remotely attributed to this SunSun Pressurized Filter that I had the misfortune of asking DEVON about was this: "Back to the gap, one thing I point out in my articles is the gap used in many pond and canister filters with built in UV sterilizers. Early on I found that even when flow rates were reduced, these were not clearing the ponds nearly as quickly as equivalent stand alone UVs (such as a 9 watt pressurized Tetra compared to a 9 watt Tetra stand alone UV). The only difference was the gap."
Devon mentioned that there was an experiment, not about the gap, but about the effect of different GPH on the speed of clarification involving these SunSun Filters, so asked him to point me there. I'm sorry, if it takes too long for me to find the right article on your web site, there is just too many cross-linked info, so I thought he would just point me there. You could've said: "find it yourself", could've mentioned that that particular experiment perhaps is not published the way I ask, but you dived into free time and lack of respect topic. Fine.
Responding to your last message about bulb surface area, do note, that nothing happens on the surface of the bulb itself. The water is flowing around quartz tubes, so you should've calculated THEIR surface area, not surface area of the bulbs. Granted, the surface area of the quartz tube in Vecton 400 is also bigger because that quartz tube is thicker. But this actually works against Vecton 400, for it's not the surface area of contact that matters more, it's the distance from the tube. Vecton 400's tube keeps water farther from plasma inside the bulb. Btw, I did mention the distance part in the first message of this thread, didn't I? Given a bulb, the power that it emits is fixed to about 1/3 of its wattage. Then this power needs to be divided by the area of imaginary cylinder of contact in the water column. The farther you get from the bulb, the greater the area, the smaller the dose that's expressed as W/cm2*s. Note that the area is in the DENOMINATOR, energy flux is INVERSELY proportional to it.
In the first post I said that I took these four things into account: 1) Differences in bulb power 2) Differences in run length 3) Differences in cross-section 4) Differences in distance from the bulb.
All four combined give a coefficient that's not in favor of 400 model.
Devon, I admire your practical way of approaching everything. One would think that to compare water volumes around quartz tubes a pi*r*r and a ruler would suffice, but I guess practical experiments have the upper hand. Still, with the dimensions posted (19mm and 29mm for quartz tube OD and 40mm PVC ID) the cross-sections have to be DIFFERENT between the two sterilizers.
And please don't get to 8w vs 15w or differences in the surface area just yet. Though I thought I've covered them clear enough in my first post as well, I can reiterate those points too. But before that, are we in agreement that linear speeds in PVC is inversely proportional to the PVC cross-section area given the same flow in GPH or not? If not, I'll try explaining it one more way. If yes, and you say "OK, given the same GPH the water moves slower in fat tubes than in thin ones in terms of cm/s", I'll move on to watts and surfaces.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 27, 2015 19:12:19 GMT -5
Carl, I'm not sure why you keep on accusing me of excess of spare time or lack of respect. The only thing that you told me in this thread that could be remotely attributed to this SunSun Pressurized Filter that I had the misfortune of asking DEVON about was this: "Back to the gap, one thing I point out in my articles is the gap used in many pond and canister filters with built in UV sterilizers. Early on I found that even when flow rates were reduced, these were not clearing the ponds nearly as quickly as equivalent stand alone UVs (such as a 9 watt pressurized Tetra compared to a 9 watt Tetra stand alone UV). The only difference was the gap."Devon mentioned that there was an experiment, not about the gap, but about the effect of different GPH on the speed of clarification involving these SunSun Filters, so asked him to point me there. I'm sorry, if it takes too long for me to find the right article on your web site, there is just too many cross-linked info, so I thought he would just point me there. You could've said: "find it yourself", could've mentioned that that particular experiment perhaps is not published the way I ask, but you dived into free time and lack of respect topic. Fine. This was noted in the thread as you found and now quoted. If there was an article, I would have referred to it. I would have, and have never given anyone an attitude of "find it yourself". If you have read anything I have here or elsewhere, this is NOT how I talk to others To me, this is just a matter of reading the thread I am quite aware of this point, splitting hairs IMO. Since the tube is of similar proportion, this made a good starting point. The distance from the tube is actually less considering the gap for the Vecton 200 & 300, but then I have already addressed this. You are forgetting that the the water and particulates in it do not flow linear to the bulb, and thus the great surface area, and smaller gap provide for more potential sterilization. Again, this has been demonstrated.You are also incorrect as per the distance from the plasma in the tube, these are pretty much equal We have already established that the flow RATE is the same, so is the volume of water. But the gap and surface area are not. Sorry, but we are back to going in circles. Are you going to provide me with something that explains the results instead of trying to convince me I never witnessed my observations or tests?Here is an example of where even when demonstrated, that your statement was partly false, you still tried to tell us we did not see what we measured: At this point, I ask again you to address the results, including the Advantage results I am done for the evening, as I have not gotten to the many actual productive tasks I had to do today, but instead have been led around in a maze where you will not answer the question of the results. Sorry if you do not see it this way as to how you treat others time and experience. This also contradicts others work and recommendations too. Even TMC does not recommend the 8 watt for the same given flow rates or aquarium sizes over the 15 watt. Carl
|
|
|
Post by devonjohnsgard on Oct 27, 2015 19:20:00 GMT -5
Carl, I'm not sure why you keep on accusing me of excess of spare time or lack of respect. The only thing that you told me in this thread that could be remotely attributed to this SunSun Pressurized Filter that I had the misfortune of asking DEVON about was this: "Back to the gap, one thing I point out in my articles is the gap used in many pond and canister filters with built in UV sterilizers. Early on I found that even when flow rates were reduced, these were not clearing the ponds nearly as quickly as equivalent stand alone UVs (such as a 9 watt pressurized Tetra compared to a 9 watt Tetra stand alone UV). The only difference was the gap." Devon mentioned that there was an experiment, not about the gap, but about the effect of different GPH on the speed of clarification involving these SunSun Filters, so asked him to point me there. I'm sorry, if it takes too long for me to find the right article on your web site, there is just too many cross-linked info, so I thought he would just point me there. You could've said: "find it yourself", could've mentioned that that particular experiment perhaps is not published the way I ask, but you dived into free time and lack of respect topic. Fine. The experiment I was talking about was the one Carl mentioned. I misspoke. Devon, I admire your practical way of approaching everything. One would think that to compare water volumes around quartz tubes a pi*r*r and a ruler would suffice, but I guess practical experiments have the upper hand. Still, with the dimensions posted (19mm and 29mm for quartz tube OD and 40mm PVC ID) the cross-sections have to be DIFFERENT between the two sterilizers. And please don't get to 8w vs 15w or differences in the surface area just yet. Though I thought I've covered them clear enough in my first post as well, I can reiterate those points too. But before that, are we in agreement that linear speeds in PVC is inversely proportional to the PVC cross-section area given the same flow in GPH or not? If not, I'll try explaining it one more way. If yes, and you say "OK, given the same GPH the water moves slower in fat tubes than in thin ones in terms of cm/s", I'll move on to watts and surfaces. I will say yes, but if I understand it correctly, I wonder how much the difference it makes. You're saying the differences in cross-sections will increase the flow enough to make a difference. This with thickness of the sleeve and... out do the SA and watts. Yes practical experience is the way I have to approach most things. That's the learning process. Not everyone can become an expert in every aspect without experience. You clearly have experience in this area almost like it was a career. The way you, Carl, and I come to learning these aspects will be different. I'm trying to understand if your variables make that much difference that it overrides length/SA and watts.
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 27, 2015 22:56:13 GMT -5
Hehe, Carl, you do bring up interesting points! Yes, in Vecton 400 water is indeed closer to the surface of the bulb. But here's the kicker. Electromagnetic field emitted by an infinite cylinder outside of that cylinder is varying with radius in the same way as electromagnetic field emitted by an infinite and thin string. I searched in my memory for a proof... The most basic one that's based on symmetry considerations in photometry I've heard in high school, the most complicated was taught in college, and there one would have to take a 3D integral of fields emitted by dipoles, but then I said screw it, and used google. Here books.google.com/books?id=mo1RAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=infinite+cylinder+light&source=bl&ots=XlX9SEMNy5&sig=F0AcAVYZ3RjQU7zrujitvC01RZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF4Q6AEwDWoVChMIo9bVwp3kyAIVRxY-Ch3o6ARy#v=onepage&q=infinite%20cylinder%20light&f=falseThe illumination produced by an infinite cylinder outside of that cylinder is inversely proportional to the radius measured from the center of the cylinder. So, no, in calculations you should measure radius from the center of the bulb, not distance from the bulb's surface. That's regarding the first bold sentence in your last post. As far as the second bold sentence and results are concerned, I'm glad that you've copy/pasted that stuff from the other thread. You see, while here I'm mostly theorizing, and I can't prove a single point experimentally (because I don't have Vecton), there I'm 100% sure that in canister setups gravity plays zero effect. Length of hoses and kinks do, but not gravity. But I thought I would play along and do that test, since it's so simple. So, I have an Eheim 2217 sitting under a 90G tank. I disconnected the return hose, asked my daughter to hold bucket close to the tank's rim, started the canister, and filled a 1G jar in 31s. Then moved the canister up 3 feet while holding the bucket in the same position, started it again, and got the same 31s for 1G of water. This gives what, about 116GPH? Then I did the real gravity test... I kept the canister down, and now raised the hose and the bucket 2 feet higher over the tank's rim. It now took 40s to pump 1G, so the throughput dropped down to 90G. So this in my opinion clearly demonstrates the difference between the open loop sump setup and a closed loop canister one. The location of the canister does NOT matter, the location of the sump pump DOES. Why? I answered in that thread. So, you see, it's things like these that I know were wrong for sure and that I can prove wrong make me worry about the rest. Hence all the formulae. From top of my head you're writing somewhere on the site that starters produce a short surge of high voltage that starts the discharge in the bulbs. No, they don't. They help to initially heat up the filament. Devon, I'm glad we're in agreement about linear speeds, I'll move on to power and surface areas tomorrow unless Carl posts another warning to my profile and bans me forever.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 28, 2015 9:51:28 GMT -5
Hehe, Carl, you do bring up interesting points! Yes, in Vecton 400 water is indeed closer to the surface of the bulb. But here's the kicker. Electromagnetic field emitted by an infinite cylinder outside of that cylinder is varying with radius in the same way as electromagnetic field emitted by an infinite and thin string. I searched in my memory for a proof... The most basic one that's based on symmetry considerations in photometry I've heard in high school, the most complicated was taught in college, and there one would have to take a 3D integral of fields emitted by dipoles, but then I said screw it, and used google. Here books.google.com/books?id=mo1RAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=infinite+cylinder+light&source=bl&ots=XlX9SEMNy5&sig=F0AcAVYZ3RjQU7zrujitvC01RZI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CF4Q6AEwDWoVChMIo9bVwp3kyAIVRxY-Ch3o6ARy#v=onepage&q=infinite%20cylinder%20light&f=falseThe illumination produced by an infinite cylinder outside of that cylinder is inversely proportional to the radius measured from the center of the cylinder. So, no, in calculations you should measure radius from the center of the bulb, not distance from the bulb's surface. That's regarding the first bold sentence in your last post. No argument, but there are also photons emitted for this field. I can also note when working on my custom UV Sterilizers (which BTW used this same 15 watt lamp), I left the light on when dry (which is not recommended for normal operations), so as to try and add different directional configurations. The UVC scorch marks were directly proportional to all shielded areas and shape of the lamp. But regardless of who is correct, wrong, partly correct, etc, this still does not answer the question as to why then is the 15 watt Vecton more effective? So far you have yet to explain results, only argue my measurement methods, so give me a better measurement method that actually explains results instead of telling me I am not seeing what I am seeing You stated that there was no difference in canister filter placement? The facts are based on these experiments and literal 1000s of actual applications, is that there is a difference. Back to what I have asked of you multiple times, is to explain the results instead you have attempt to tell me that what I have observed/tested over the last 35 years did not actually occur. This sir is rude. I am all for improving my articles, which your comments about head pressure and my poor wording was corrected based on your interactions, but so far you have yet to show anything as to UV Sterilization in aquariums/ponds other than disrespect my experience and those I respect who I have also learned from. No further comments will be allowed until you answer the questions I have now stated several times: (1) Explain why the results for the 15 watt Vecton are better than both the 8 Watt and 16 Watt Vecton (2) Explain why the difference in Sterilization/Clarification ability between the 30 Watt Advantage and 25 Watt Advantage is greater than the difference between the 25 watt and 15 Watt Advantage (3) Explain why a Pressurized Pond Filter cannot even perform clarification, yet when using the same 9 watt G23 UV bulb, the same quartz sleeve, by the same manufacturer (Tetra in this case) when in a separate compact in-line UV with a reaction chamber similar to the Advantage, Terminator, Vecton could clear this? One key is the flow rate, as when slowed to the same flow rates, the pond filter could perform some clarification, but then when run at these low flow rates it failed to utilize its full filtration capabilities.(4) Explain why while both the Vecton 200 8 Watt and Terminator Compact 9 Watt UV Sterilizer worked well, the Vecton at one watt less of energy input still out performed the Terminator (5) Explain why the Nektonics bulb type UV Sterilizer with large gaps between the lamp and inner walls, even when run at low flow rates, had no affect on Oodinium (and little on clarification), but when replaced by the Aquanetics 15 Watt UVs (which are very similar in design to the Vecton 400, except without the deflection shields) lowered both oodinium incidence and improved other results too. In this case I will admit one flaw in my comparisons, these Nektonics were two 5 Watt UVs (total 10 watts), each mounted to lift tubes at each end of the aquarium; where as the Aquanetics was 30% higher in energy. However, the volume of total water in the reaction chambers were similar, the combined flow rates were similar, and most importantly the results were much more notable than the 30% difference would indicate. I will also note that when this Nektonics UV first came out, I thought these looked alike a good idea (obviously I was wrong), so I bought more than a dozen. Eventually over time I replaced each and every one and each time results were improved considerablyUntil you address these questions no further posts will be allowed.Carl
|
|
eaf
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by eaf on Oct 28, 2015 10:40:11 GMT -5
Well, since you've removed my post that I addressed to Devon rather than you where we had an independent and purely technical rather than emotional conversation going, and I was explaining my reasoning to him step-by-step since he at least wanted to hear them, I don't think it's worth for me to post here at all. I wouldn't be surprised if going this way this entire thread is going to be deleted or edited to your advantage.
I can understand moderation for emphatic or attacking remarks, but deleting posts that were actually right on target and were aimed at explaining things to another person, that's despicable.
Anyway, there were only three participants in this discussion, hardly normal for a public forum.
Go by your experience, by all means. I sign off.
|
|
|
Post by devonjohnsgard on Oct 28, 2015 10:44:40 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm still stuck in the theory of this one dimensional thinking. Looks good on paper, but doesn't make sense when I apply it to what I know about high energy photons.
I know the UVC photons are bouncing around like crazy in the unit. These are some of the highest energetic photons, not being emitted in this one dimensional direction. I know this, because lighting fixtures on the market, the biggest challenge is intense directional delivery. There's no directional delivery inside the chamber. I still don't think the 8 watts will be able to bet out 15.
There's also one dimension thinking of the water traveling through the tube, which I believe, if we could measure it, we would see is not true either.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 28, 2015 10:59:30 GMT -5
Well, since you've removed my post that I addressed to Devon rather than you where we had an independent and purely technical rather than emotional conversation going, and I was explaining my reasoning to him step-by-step since he at least wanted to hear them, I don't think it's worth for me to post here at all. I wouldn't be surprised if going this way this entire thread is going to be deleted or edited to your advantage. I can understand moderation for emphatic or attacking remarks, but deleting posts that were actually right on target and were aimed at explaining things to another person, that's despicable. Anyway, there were only three participants in this discussion, hardly normal for a public forum. Go by your experience, by all means. I sign off. Sorry but you have broken several forum rules: everythingaquatic.proboards.com/thread/1524/mission-board-goals-rulesThe post removed was saved for when you ceased breaking forum rules. I verified that Devon had already read it, so it reached the person you intended. Breaking of forum rules is what is despicable, then expecting me as a moderator to allow you to continue on would be wrong. Here are the rules you have broken: (2) If you have an issue over our moderation techniques, you are more then welcome to send an administrator a private message. Please do not belittle or undermine others in a public forum, and keep in mind that all staff members are here on a volunteer basis, are not paid for their services. They help out in their free time here, so please give them the respect they deserve for it.
(6) You will not maliciously attack, harass, degrade, slander, and/or stalk other members. If you feel someone is maliciously attacking, harassing, degrading, slandering or stalking you, immediately contact a moderator to attempt to resolve the issue. Please understand the definitions of these terms. As an example, stating to someone, both directly and indirectly that their outcomes of product use or experience is bogus, IS degrading!
(7) Have thick skin. It's a big world out there and not everyone in the world is going to agree with you. Try not to be easily offended when someone disagrees with you or doesn't like your idea about something. It is fine to disagree, as long as you respectfully disagree. This said, "talking over someone" is a "polite" way of being rude and/or condescending and is not a respectful way to disagree. Example would be failing to answer another member's question or address a statement and continuing the conversation as though their points were never made.As for public discussion, plenty have read, but I can guess that few wanted to participate, as you were failing to allow for discussion just for the reasons as stated in the rules. I know that I am a member in forums outside the aquarium hobby/industry. When others come in with the same tone you have taken, nobody wants to participate (unless in an un-moderated free for all forum) Carl
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Oct 28, 2015 14:21:03 GMT -5
In sharing this thread with my sister, who is a college chemistry professor, two thoughts came to her mind as to this thread and so-called discussion.
(1)"Good scientific method always includes good data collection and good observations. Ignoring this as been has done here does not make for good scientific method"
(2) Here is an analogy she made as to how data was ignored in favor of raw calculations by the OP: "Your calculations may say I should be dead, but why am I standing here?"
Carl
|
|